United States District Court, District of Columbia
DR. ARIEL ROSITA KING, et al., Plaintiffs,
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants
For ARIEL ROSITA KING, Dr., ALMA, by her next best friends Dr. Margo King and Dr. Ariel Rosita King, Plaintiffs: Roy Leslie Morris, LEAD ATTORNEY, Arlington, VA.
For DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant: Martha J. Mullen, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC; Todd Christhom Smith, D.C. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Civil Litigation Division III, Washington, DC.
For ALISON M. JACKSON, Dr. MD, MPH, Director, Children's National Medical Center, Defendant: Emily C. Helms Williams, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Litigation Group, Washington, DC; Warren T. Allen, II, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Washington, DC.
JAMES S. GWIN, 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. No. 49]
Plaintiffs Ariel Rosita King and Margo King move the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to correct purported errors in the Court's July 18, 2012, Opinion and Order.  Defendants opposed
the motion.  For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the motion.
In 2009, Ariel King brought an action against her husband, Michael H. Pfeiffer, in the Domestic Relations Branch of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (the " D.C. Family Court" ).  She alleged that Pfeiffer was medically neglecting their daughter, " Alma," who was almost six years old and lived with Pfeiffer.  The D.C. Family Court found that King failed to show Pfeiffer medically neglected Alma, and it denied King's requested relief.  Continuing to seek medical intervention for Alma, King and her mother Margo brought this action on June 17, 2011, against various individuals, agencies, and the District of Columbia.  The Kings contested the D.C. Family Court ruling by asserting nine causes of action under District of Columbia law, federal statutes, the United States Constitution, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  On July 18, 2012, the Court found that the Kings, as a noncustodial parent and grandparent, did not have standing to sue on Alma's behalf, and had not stated viable claims on their own behalf.  Thus, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. 
On July 18, 2012, the Kings appealed this Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  On March 1, 2013, the DC Circuit affirmed the Court's ruling.  Now, the Court considers the Kings' Rule 60 motion. 
II. Legal Standard
As a threshold matter, the Court construes the Kings' motion as a Rule 59(e) motion. The Kings say that their motion is a Rule 60(a) motion.  But, Rule 60(a) allows a district court to revise a ruling to correct " a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission."  These errors come from " pure inadvertence, rather than a mistaken exercise of judgment."  Here, the Kings' motion identifies purported errors of ...